Bitcoin Forum

It worked for some time that I turned my $5 to $40 in 2 days of betting. This is just a test of it as I learn this from someone as well. He didn't teach me the entire strategy but just gave me a hint on how to do it.  So maybe if you can improve this sports betting strategy, you may as well contribute to this evolution.

So here are his words: Find a sport like Hockey where teams normally just score a few and usually the first team that scores wins the game. And then find a casino that lists live matches. And then Parlay on 2-3 games. Don't go more than that or it gets riskier he emphasizes.

So what I did is apply this same strategy on Soccer as well. Remember to do this on live matches.
So when you see game 1-0 and the team that score 1 has the odds of 1.30, I guess this is a good bet already. Just add another of these live games for your multibet and hope to win. Also, make sure it's already 2nd half.

Note: Not Guaranteed But Worth Trying.

I was eager to give this a try. I too want to turn my $5 to $40 as well and return to share the news too but I am not getting it. Isn't this the strategy we all do. I recently read of one user that had multibet of up to 30 plus games. And in that thread we argued that while some people were lucky to win, the risk was too high. And most people said that 2 to 3 parlay bet was a better and safer option that guarantees winning that multibet of the magnitude.

I know that it’s not guaranteed, but it seems like working with those little teams will improve the chance of success.

I have thought of this before but I haven’t put it to the test because sometimes we see some live matches that had 2-0 at the second half but at the end of the game we see that both time tied the match (this might be the few cases that might make this strategy a bit harder to win).

If I have some cash in my account after playing some slots I might consider trying this out and also check if I can figure out a way to make it easier.

This strategy is not new, some gamblers in my area apply it. This is a good one that could lead to a win and it can be applied in many sports bets. I appreciate your footnote that this system would not guarantee wins but it is worth giving a trial. My best sports bet is football and the games are highly unpredictable because less than a minute can produce a goal which can cut your bet. Anyway, I will apply this strategy in this week's bet, to check if it will favor me.

I turned $5-$10 to $50-$100.. but after a good winning streak, I faced a losing streak. The strategy works for a while and brings profit, but at one point everything seems to turn around, and the same strategy starts to fail and every bet falls into the water.

So as far as sports betting is concerned, there is no guarantee, but as you say, all we can do is try, so if it works, it works. My only recommendation is to combine different bets, don't chase the same teams and the same bets, the more diverse we are the higher the chance for us to succeed in being profitable in the long run.

I rarely bet during a match because the score will always change at the end, especially when the underdogs take the lead and the odds can be reversed.
If for example the favorite team is already 1 goal ahead then the odds are not the usual 1.30 but more like 1.03 which is lower because the probability of winning is clear unless playing with an equal team.

Op, in gambling strange things happen that are far from our predictions. Games like this can end up Turing the other way round. Yesterday I tried using this strategy but it didn't end up well. A game of 2:0 later ended up 2:2 scenarios even worse than this have happened. So the fact that it's a goal, two or even 3 difference doesn't mean the match will always end up favouring the wining team at that moment. And this is why gambling is considered a game of absolute luck, we cannot always know what's coming and that why gambling is risky and we need to gamble with caution, not to gamble with more than what we can't afford to loss.

especially when we only bet without knowing the sports by heart. betting based on the odds is what this strategy is.  it does work at times and sometimes not.
but i think if this strategy is used by someone who took soccer or hockey sport by heart, i think he will have a good solid cash source.

we can see there are thousands of us here who like soccer especially because they are from a country where soccer is the most popular sport, this strategy though not new will be useful.

Booking on live games are one of the most profitable ways to gamble on sports yet, it's no new strategy like you said..or is it?

---

The casinos still have a bigger advantage on this as the leading team may miraculously be overruled, just about the time you're supposed to claim your winnings; a clear example of that happened when a team was already winning with 2 goals aside - To any gambler, that was enough to paralyse the other team's confidence but, the reverse was the case. The result was a 2-4 victory!
Mind you, you're not wagering on a single game though - you gotta make tons of selections or a few selection with a higher stake.

I've also got a strategy in mind - The handicap option!

Even if it's already the second half, that doesn't guarantee winning. While placing bets on such games, never put all hope on winning because those low-performing clubs can still improve and end up winning the game at last. There's one thing someone told me one day: "you can't decide the score of a game until the last whistle is blown." That statement made a little sense to me because even in the last 2 or 3 minutes, a club can still score against the opposite team. It is wise to only stake the amount that one is willing to lose without emotional troubles. I know that there is a wide chance to get lucky with this kind of bet, but let's not forget that gambling can't be predictable all the time.After winning four streaks at a time and you want to go the last time, that might be the time that game may go against you. 

A wise man once said that discovery requires experimentation. Before slamming the strategy, I'm going to take some moments to try out the strategy then take note of how it goes. My most recent strategy is backing teams with a Double chance bet especially teams that are high conviction plays. It worked for majority of the time until one time that it didn't (see Liverpool recent games at anfield  :)). I'm not too familiar with hockey on BcGame but I'd give it a shot and report back to the thread about how it went.

I don't really know about the 2nd half live betting, because even when I have tried to navigate a particular Sportybet site sometime back, it wasn't even up to 5mins before the match started, that the bets were closed. That's why I can't help but wonder how and which Sportsbet site you know or can recommend with such features.

Also, the idea of trying out a game like hockey seems new to me and is worth trying out, since for some of us, just a few bets or gamble on sports and casino games helps relax frayed nerves, instead of going at it like a career.

Haven't been on Sportybet, seen only for Nigerians.  Are you not able to sign up on other crypto casinos?
Even in the Stake though, it needs timing when you want to bet on 2nd half, the odds constantly change and sometimes betting on some match will be suspended already before your bet pushes through.

Some of those who tried may also have a good rate with this kind of system. I've talked to someone from American Football, he said this also works on that sport. I guess it all just depends on each of us.

This is 800% profit, a very enticing one if you ask me. I guess it is very aggressive to be able to achieve this result in 2 days. Well, if it works for you keep at it but be careful to manage your risk properly and don't get too over confident before you put more money than you are supposed to. There was a system I was playing before which was over 0.5 goals HT, this worked so well to an extent but the moment I increased the amount I was betting with, things turned for bad thereby forcing me to abandon that system.

Live bet is very risky and I have a hard time coping with it. Betting on 1-0 match is still a risky bet and adding it more games even increases the risk because there is possibility of equalizer. Unless maybe the favorite team is leading in that second half and under such condition, the odd may not be up to 1.30.

We can decide on using any strategy, but we should never forget that such may not have to work for us, and if it had already worked out perfectly as expected before, it may not be repeatedly, which means, when it comes to our own turn in using same strategy, things may change, however, we are to maintain using others opinion as part of our own experience which may also help us towards having our own strategy to develop, if we don't mind, there are no specific working strategies of sport betting except we are just lucky of being a user of one.

Live matches has little or no much odds if I may say, why not pick up two to three games on before the matches goes live won't it work that way? Let say 1 hrs before the matches goes live at this point there is a very high chance that odd are still in good stands but before one must pick these games let it be that the both team always scores goals where it won't go below over 0.5 (under 0.5) or over 1.5 with multiple bet of 3 games.

I don't really like betting on long shots, I wonder how people win from it because I find it very risky and would always go for 3-5 games, 5 maximum. That's the highest I could go, but then you'll see people playing about 24-30 games and sometimes they make good profit from it. I guess I've not made my mind to take such risk yet therefore I'll just stick to what I know which is staking high on about 3 -5 games.

 I've tried the OP's strategy and it worked for me once but the second time I tried it a funny thing happened, maybe I wasn't lucky. Away was winning 2-0, then I staked on it and added 3 more games, guess what? The one playing 2-0 ended with a draw, home team scored at 70mins and equalized the game at 90 plus I felt disappointed but it was so funny and I even laughed over it and since then I've not tried such strategy again.

2 or 3 games should be fine. Doing more than 3 I think you'd be comfortable when their odds are 1.15 and below. But I'd still recommend 2 or 3 games only. I'm still experimenting with this method though. Sometimes I lose but I'm sure I win more.

The DRAW is always a bummer. There are games that I am already assuming I will win but in the end, the other team scores one and the score is tie 1-1. And the house obviously wins when this happens. The beauty of just betting a small amount for like $5 in multibet is that the odds could equate to 1.70.

I don't want to crash the party here, but I doubt that this is a winning strategy. The odds are pretty well chosen by the bookmakers a lot of the time and finding sweet spots isn't easy. I don't know whether your claim is true that the team scoring first is the one most likely winning the game. Whether that is hockey or football, I doubt that there is obvious potential to be found in the odds.

Imagine an underdog takes the lead, which does indeed happen, but I would still feel uncomfortable picking the first scoring team as the winner only because they scored first. And picking odds of around 1.30 doesn't necessarily mean that you should do your research in live markets. The question is if you play a parlay of 1.3 + 1.3 whether you are really better off than just going for a single game with a 1.7?

As they say, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
If a simple strategy like that worked long-term, all sports-betting sites would've gone bankrupt long time ago. The reality is, the only good strategy is when you can get the pay-out rate exceeding the actual chances, which rarely happen and requires bookies to misjudge the odds.
When you bet on live events when one side already took a lead, you'd usually get super low odds to the point it's not worth the effort. I'd argue that the opposite strategy has a better chance of success: bet on live events on the losing team. You'd probably lose most of the time, but the proceeds from the fewer wins could be high enough to make it work.


Has anyone seen any statistics on how often the teams that take the lead first end up winning? Would be interesting to see.

I have to disagree with you!

I don't know what hockey matches are like because I don't even follow this sport, but in football I can tell you that it is a very unpredictable sport.
Maybe this changes a lot between countries, but here in Brazil, for example, it's not uncommon to see a favorite team start winning and lose until the end of the game.
In fact, I would list some sports that I consider quite unpredictable and where I would never apply this technique... Firstly, it is Football, in addition to baseball, basketball and American football.

So, I would say you have been lucky so far, be careful with your next bets. Anyway, please keep updating us on your results.... I could be wrong.

I used the same strategy a few times to create a small parlay with 2.00+ decimal odds, and it can backfire most of the time because the live odds can bait you into thinking they're that favored while the real odds could be much closer.

You're lucky if you can pull off several small parlay wins through live betting, as blindly taking favored teams can quickly throw away their lead if they're the underdog during the pre-live betting.

Regardless of the downsides, I still recommend the strategy to those who haven't tried it, and always take note of the teams you're live betting.

I have always suggested a game mode that I call "elastic bet rule".
Basically you decide what to play based on a certain pattern and then apply it to your games.


only problem in this specific case: low odds + parlay bets.

But I'm more concerned about the parlay bet aspect.... Maybe this rule works in 75% of cases, but with a parlay bet you risk losing because you include the 25% of cases in which it doesn't work.

Surely, It might prove difficult to play according to any strategy when betting mostly when it is supposed to be a game that is thought to be as easy as hockey.
To me even second half betting isn't a thing anymore for many Sportsbooks site and if the goal is to win easily, stick to popular games that may be easier to understand or just better play for the fun of it.

That actually does make sense about the first team to score is the likely winner of the game but I'm kind of on the fence with this one because I want to make sure that this is true because there's the factor of comebacks and underdogs taking the wins, it's a devastating thing to jump in with this really good advice if you don't know what you're talking about. I might've just found a new thing to do, watching matches and seeing if this is true to some level, might not post my result though as I'm not yet sure if this will work. Most of the time that I do bets, I almost always go for the lowest odds since they're most likely to win, safe gaming has been my thing so I'm not keen on trying something new.

There was a study in 2016 that make a research to 5 domestic leagues, when a team score first the chance to win is 76.25%, if we calculate the odds using this winning percentage, the odds will be @1.33.

It's not really a winning strategy because the bookie already calculate the odds correctly, so the risk to reward ratio is fair. We could say it's a winning strategy if the odds is higher than what the bookies calculated, which mean we're have the advantage.

In my opinion, this is a rather controversial strategy. Even if a team scores 1 goal, this does not mean that it will score a second. And the odds for the winning team of 1.3, in my opinion, are quite small. It is hardly worth playing with such small odds. After all, your possible win is 3 times less than your possible loss. This is not something to follow. Even if you win 3 times in a row on bets with odds of 1.3, then 1 loss is enough to destroy all your winnings.
 As for the probability of victory for a team that has already scored 1 goal, then it is necessary to collect reliable statistics. Has anyone collected such statistics?

"Even if you win 3 times in a row on bets with odds of 1.3, then 1 loss is enough to destroy all your winnings."

That is probably the best explanation why this "strategy" won't work out long-term. Coincidence can be running against you all the time and what Julien_Olynpic brought up here is important to consider. Even if you find one game with odds of 1.3 where you think that the bookmaker is getting it slightly wrong to the players' favor, in the long run if you play 100 games with odds of 1.3 the bookmaker is also less likely to get it wrong, meaning that the remaining margin for the player (if there is any) will approach zero, the more games are being played at that odds range.

@cybron wouldn't the best way to find out be to simulate it? You could go for it and behave "as if" you were placing bets exactly as you described and then share the results here. I am quite sure that over time the strategy will play out against you. The problem is that you shouldn't even vary your bet size, which makes it boring as it would purely be a bankroll game, hoping that due to pursuing that strategy you got an edge over the house. But I have seen 1.3 go wrong so many times that 3-way-parlays aren't even that promising at all.

I understand this and it is not unusual. It is actually a winning strategy even in football betting to check for teams that doesn't score much goals to bet on them on under and also to look at scoring teams like Manchester city to bet on over. You are likely to win bets like this if you have analyzed it and bet it as single bet but some gamblers don't like single games because the potential winning amount will be lower.


It is quite a winning strategy to bet on fewer games because if you bet on multiple, you are likely to be unlucky that some of the games will not turn out successful but 2/3 games are easy win and professional bettors are cashing out more on this way of betting than those who go on multiple.

Nothing different with bet favorite teams, of course the winning percentage is high, but we don't know when our luck will run out.

It's incorrect, if I win 3 times in a row, I would still in profit even though I loss in one match.

1.3^3 = 2.197, I still earn 0.197 even though I loss in the next match.

Actually the poster above your post already pointed out the statistic.

OP, you only told us about your wins on two days, so I would like to know the results of the other days that you didn't mention, or is these two days your first try, and you haven't tried it again. It might work for you at the first time, does not mean that it is a good strategy that can always give you wins.

You talked about using this strategy in football, when the game is in the second half, have you forgotten that recently, the teams that are always on the lead in the first half, sometimes loses the gmatch in the complete 90 minutes due to substitution of players and the team losing can take advantage of the second half to play better than the did in the second half.

Gambling is a game of luck, and whatever strategy that we implement that works for us, is based on luck and not our strategy of understanding how the game works or coming up with any trick of winning.

What you said is true, but I think that Julien_Olynpic was more talking about the ballpark and how much margin there is left for a player, which is pretty close to zero.

The only scenario where I think using these margins as a winning strategy is when we look at high stakes players and how they generate extra benefits through their rollover. But as far as I know if bookmakers detect strategies like that and someone perfectly sticks to it, they could just limit your account to certain thresholds and take away some of the potential to add benefits to narrow margins.

A player who is only betting small stakes would literally have to pursue a full time job finding 1.3's that make sense to make an extra dollar at the end of the day. You would also have to be able to catch several 1.3's at the same time that fulfill the aforementioned requirements. I have never tried it, but I am sure that it is not that easy to find three 1.3's at the same time and to not have any interferences with the submission. Someone would have to closely monitor several leagues at once and probably several sports in order to be able to play a good number of parlays on a day that fulfill the conditions.

There is no different strategy here in comparing to the popular prediction strategies which usually insights that the lesser odd you go for and lesser number of games you picks is the more advantage you would stand chances of winning but in all it never works.

In football match which I know very well, a team can be on 2-0 but before the end of the game it ends in the odd times it could end up 2 - 2+ with a winning advantage of the team that was initially loosing.

The rightful strategy to be confident in winning in the gamble can never be revealed because such never existed.

Talking about sport bets such as football, you can only secure some chances to win when you bets on the big teams against smaller teams but yet not still a 100% assurance.

Too many conditions must be met first such as the match must be 1:0 or 0:1, ensure the odds are not more than @1.3 and ensuring that bets are placed in the second half. You know that actually betting with odds of @1.1 doesn't make you an absolute win, right?

I'll be watching a few games this weekend to see how accurate this strategy is, and I have 1 question about the percentages, so far have you gotten at least 90% wins from this strategy?

I didn't quite understand the meaning of the strategy to be honest. The trick is that the team that leads is most likely to win? Yes, this is true, but this probability is already reflected in the coefficient. And by the way, the closer the end of the game is, the smaller the odds for the leading team to win, so it seems to me that it will be difficult to find what you advise (1.3 odds plus the second half of the game).

^ Doesn't have to be 1.3m could be 1.20 or 1.25 as long as below 1.3. If you are adventurous enough you can try 1.50.
But as I said, the strategy is no guarantee but this is worth trying.


Not really 90% I think I lost countless bets as well but over all I'm winning with this strategy. There are tons of soccer games on every betting platform. I tried this on FiFA, those teams are just too pro I guess that even the underdog in the first half can beat the fave in the 2nd half.

You may try it on different platforms https://www.betcoin.ag for instance has 63 live soccer games while some other casinos have just 28 live matches so there are lots of teams to pick from even when you are in local betting platforms, there are more than 10 live soccer games.

I only dare to include up to 5 matches in a parlay bet if 2-3 games are not enough odds for a bet list.

I've done it before and it's worth a try. Betting during a live match by trying to see if the score is still not above 2, there is a chance of winning the bet even though the odds are low for the team that is ahead. For matches played by well-known teams, it is not necessarily the right target, but in matches teams from the league are not taken into account, just look at the standings table and the statistics of the goals they scored and then make a decision to place a bet on the team that has a 1-0 lead.

In the past I did this and if I was lucky the first time I turned my 1$ into 10$, I bet on live games. First I analyzed the game a lot and then I watched the game while analyzing how each team was defending and attacking, after a team scored a goal and I concluded that that team had the conditions to win, so I bet on that team and managed to get it right. After I won a bet, I took all the winnings and put them into another live bet. I did this until I won 10x the amount I deposited. But then came the sequence of defeats that I started to question about the effectiveness of this strategy

because what happened was that I analyzed the games before they started and saw that team x had a greater chance of beating team z, but during the live game team z dominated the game and scored the goal first and I bet on team z, but when it reached the 80th minute, team x scored a lot of goals and won the game. This happened so many times that it made me think that the best option was to bet before the game started because it would have decent odds and less risk of making the same mistake as in the past. while betting live if you have low odds and high risk

But if this is a valid pattern, then when team Z scores a goal, you should bet on team X, since team X’s quotes become much more attractive compared to the beginning of the game when the score is 0-0.
By the way, I love making such bets and the original favorite most often takes its toll, the problem is that this is live betting and you need to spend a lot of personal time on it. Moreover, you don’t determine the moment when it’s convenient for you, you have to adapt to the schedule of games.

I'm still observing the strategy you explain here, and until now I haven't found that this strategy is good enough because we don't have a definite guarantee that a bet with odds of even @1.01 will win. Then regarding FIFA that you said, whether it's an e-games bet or a real football match, honestly I don't get the point you mean ???.

Tomorrow is the weekend, and there will be lots of major European league matches, it's the right time to test whether your strategy is working or not. BTW, thanks for sharing.

Can i ask you question:
What if the team that scores in first half didn't score the second half what is the result gonna look like?
Like, while betting do we have to give the winning team direct winning since you can't factor the team to win or what if the results comes out 'draw' and you already given HOME or AWAY to win.
I think in my opinion it's a very tough bet, so why not select just few game on before the match starts. Let say one can decides to select only 3 matches which they scores more than 2 goals whenever they play and give them over 1.5 and 2.5 respectively with this your winning is sure, if the total odds give you 4 odd then it's a good game and the winning is sure.

Happens all the time that a team doesn't score in the 2nd half.
DRAW is depressing really. I have a lot of losses with draws when the other team in the last few minutes, scores 1 point and they are 1:1.

Selecting matches before the game starts means you are familiar with the teams. The better chances you have when you know the sports. And you can tell whether the odds or the casino aren't fooling you. Of course, this system more likely going to work better for people who know more about soccer and a fan, especially in the national league.

This is why we mustn't gamble with excessively large amount, even if the possibility of wining the ticket is high. A game of 2:0 where the home team is on the lead in the first half, can experience a turn around and later end 2:3 it has happened before and more are yet to still happen. If the home team receives a red card in the other half of the game, it would be very easy for them to conceive a goal or even series of goals from their opposition team. That's one of the reason why the game is a bit tricky and interesting. Your ability to make good predictions is what determines your chance of winning mean while it is still obviously a game of luck.

The difference with soccer is that the match can end in a draw and in such this strategy is much less effective overall. If you have 1/2 chances in hockey or you have 1/3 in soccer. Also I'd say that whenever someone scores the odds are immediately lowered for live bets so I don't think this is that great of a strategy.

Perhaps it's more based on luck so if you so far have been winning that's a good sign but don't let it ride forever. Eventually it would also go down at some point.

ubilant success, turning $5 into $40 over two days of bets surely seems like an accomplishment worthy of pride. Yet this is not mere luck but the fruition of a strategy shrewdly devised. Curiously, your muse is not a mentor in the art of sports betting but one who provides subtle pointers, not a complete guide but enough to set you on your way.

Your adopted strategy involves seeking out sports such as Hockey where scoring is typically low and the first goal winner usually prevails. You then scout for a casino offering live play and place a Parlay on 2-3 games, best not to exceed that number as more matches translate to heightened risk. More sire, with three games placed there are only two possible outcomes in which all bets lose so you have less chance.

You even use this approach in soccer betting: sitting back until live matches appear on your screen and waiting to pounce when a team is already ahead 1-0 with promising odds. Remember not to stake a single bet but include other games in your multibet; also ensure that the matches are in the second half so you can place bets without forgetting these simple rules.

Well, you could say that it is a technique that I don't know how it can turn out, it is innovative, but innovative for me, I don't know much about Hockey, that sport is too good because it is rough and all rough sports fascinate me. Unfortunately I was never able to practice this sport because in my country there is no infrastructure for that, but at a time when they put in ice rinks I went skating many times and the truth was that it was Excellent for me, I don't know but if they had put in a team or worked on it I would have been an amateur player, but I don't understand that game very well, however if that's the case with the strategy they gave you, it's worth trying , Everything in life is a risk, and we have to take them according to our financial capabilities.

I think it's nothing different with betting on favorite teams because you're trying to bet on match with higher chance to win with low odds. I'm not really like to bet on low odds, so I either gamble on underdog or parlay bets.

It's more sadden to see low odds bets are lose than high odds bets since low odds betting mostly gamble using most of the bankroll.

Just bet on "draw no bet", so you only need to pick from two options.

What I know is that what could be applied to hockey and other sports games could also be applicable to soccer betting as well, which is why I commend you on testing this out. However, this strategy looks odd and it shows some kind of "gambling within gambling" kind of pattern which I am not particularly comfortable with. The best way to bet on sports is to know the full information about the two teams playing and use your discretion and instinct to make your bet. This is still subject to some luck factors as well, and not about a certain pattern that your friend taught you.

Besides, if a team can score a goal and could keep it till the end of the match often, it only means that the team is not weak but strong which is a factor that will reduce the odds of that team against the other. This is never to my advantage and I do not do small odds in my sports betting which has been one of the ways to help me manage my gambling activities well and not be wasting my time like so many people do it randomly.

In other words, this style's risk is too high for me.

Gambling within gambling pattern is always the kind of system done in most strategies even the martingale system which one can apply also in this strategy. and just like @Solosanz said, this is like betting on your favorite team but just multi-betting but this time doing it live and in the 2nd half, and at the same time you are almost sure the team will win because they already scored.

Based on my experience, it doesn't work much in the very popular premier leagues or on FIFA because of the chances of DRAWs.

When it comes to Gambling bets can we say that there definitely is a strategy to making stakes and placing bets? My reason for saying this is quite simple. Now if you observe closely you will notice that sports betting including soccer is more like making a prediction and in such a case predictions are based more on luck than calculations. Although analysis and experience also helps, the percentage of luck required to ace a bet is still very huge compared to the level of experience and analysis required.
Now I am not saying it's impossible to have a strategy in sports betting, rather all I'm saying is that although it is possible the role luck has to play is still a very huge one.

Have you tried to backtest your betting strategy on past matches by chance? How many times are you able to guess the winner of the game by applying this strategy on 100 matches for example?
I don't understand why you wait the 2nd half to place your bet BTW, since you are taking live odds, it's more profitable to bet earlier because the less time remains in the match, the lower are live odds for the team leading because it will win even if no other goal are scored, and the more the time passes, the less likely it is to have another goal. So if your strategy is just to bet on the first team to score, it is certainly more interesting to bet on it right after its first goal.  

TBH, I already knew about this strategy before but never tried it because I was doubtful about the risk I was taking but it wasn't worth the odds which seemed a little small to me.
but whether this is luck or this strategy can really provide an 89% guarantee of victory, but I tried it myself in yesterday's match.
Initially I had read this thread and wanted to prove it for myself with a small amount of around $1 to see if I really got a win and it turned out I was surprised by the winning results I got.

I only tried single bets and maybe if there is another match later, maybe try parlay bets
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/05/06/r7Z1C.jpeghttps://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/05/06/r7SRJ.jpeg

from this picture, the match is in progress but Almeria is ahead by 1 score and I placed a bet right in the second half choosing Almeria to win with odds @1.35 and I got the win.
but unfortunately my main bet actually lost with a bigger bet :D
I never wanted to try this strategy because I prefer challenges at bigger odds to get profits commensurate with the risks we take.

So basically this "strategy" is to find a bunch of games, that are playing right now and betting on the team that scored the first goal?
This doesn't seem like a sports betting strategy to me. The belief that the team, that scores the first goal usually wins the game isn't very common in football. Hockey games can't end in a draw, while football games could end in draw very often. This changes the odds.
Football games aren't as predictable as other sports. Maybe you should stick to hockey.
The best football betting strategy I know is matched betting. This isn't even a strategy, it's a method to make some easy money out of sports betting bonuses.

Strategies in sports betting only work with knowledge, you can't expect to apply a strategy like this without having any knowledge and understanding about the teams involved in a match because that wouldn't make any sense and you will see your strategy falling apart. What if the team that scored a goal isn't the favorite but somehow managed to score and the opponent is stronger than them and they might score two or more goals later on?

So, however uses or applies such strategies on their bets need to understand that sports betting is all about knowledge and understanding of the teams and the players involved and you can't make your bets based on how many goals are scored and what is the timer at that time because we have often seen teams scoring more than 2 goals in the last few minutes of a game.

I quite understand your point about betting fewer games but I kind of feel that the confirmation of winning that you are talking about if you bet few games and smaller odd isn't always like that. If we say that every small odd or few games amounts to winning then every of such will be winning then every gambler will look in that direction. Are we taking away the luck factor in gambling? The point therefore is even lowest odds do become the set back on slip. There are times when only 1.30 odd will lose and 3.15 odd will win. However, I agree that it is better to bet fewer games than multiple, because the chances are high to win than multiple bets.

Methods like these don't always work because ultimately you are playing with luck and that first goalscorer might get their goal back from the opposing team and the game might end in a draw.

The mental satisfaction here is from the fact that you are doing something that is different from regular games. It cuts the existing redundancy but does not add anything new. It is not a skill based game and hence however you might want to twist the things, it all comes down to your luck.

You're right I've tried such method with sports betting and it doesn’t work very often you might be lucky on the first two trials before you realise that you won't win very often. Infact there's no strategy that guarantees one to always win you could only minimise your losing streaks but won't win everytime. And i agree with you cause most times when i used that strategy it's always a draw game that ruins it mostly.

 Every individual should understand that luck plays a very good role in gambling and whether you've got a very good strategy, their are times when luck comes in. I'm very used to sports betting lately there are sometimes when you’ll be pretty sure you've won a bet then you’ll see a lesser team equalising at 89mins just few mins to the end of the match.

Acceptable, in fact quite a few of us have applied it in betting on the sports we love. for example, what you say in this thread is not something foreign to me personally. anyway, I also do it even without having to do it in a live match. The concept is the same, the difference is that I don't aim to always win in every bet. Let's be realistic, in reality no one wants to lose their bet. that's why, I do my betting sessions with pleasure. I mean, without having to focus on the results. why, because for me usually these things can change our assumptions in every choice and even a high sense of desire to win. on the other hand, betting 1 or two single matches for me is enough. Of the many available schedules, we are presented with various matches.

This is where the unique thing is, sorting and choosing has become a necessity for me. It's a bit time-consuming, but in football we can review several days before the match takes place. in the final stage, evaluate and examine the results of the analysis to confirm our choice. There is no need to focus on the lowest odds or direct matches, because in fact there is no definite guarantee for that. We can sort and choose everything, according to the knowledge and insight we have. I like the lowest odds at least @1.70. that too, with all the options available. So, you don't have to bet to always choose a team. Likewise with the parlay option, 3 matches is more than enough, because the more we choose, the greater our ratio of losing. I have carried this idea through the years regardless of winning or losing. Moreover, I am a sports lover. So, the main point is not the winning money. but the sensation that is presented is also the art of football itself.

It's just like any strategy that anyone has, they're all doomed to daily in the long run. If there was a guaranteed winning strategy then casinos and sportsbooks would be out of business.

Basically from what I read, you're just hoping that the 1st team to score holds. Unfortunately, sports are super unpredictable and even a game with 1.01 odds can lose.

Not gonna work all the time though I haven't managed to try it personally. I saw some hockey and football games where the score will become 1-1 or 1-2 (the first who scored losses or draw) and I don't think it will not work all the time. I still prefer to make a simple research regarding the team and match even if I am not familiar with them, a simple look at their previous matchup or games would give you an idea on which team who will win or how many scores in total they could make, and place that bet.

This kind of method works on me (but not all the time) there's an instances that I lose 8 consecutively so yeah, it's there's really no winning strategy that let you win all the time but there's a lot of strategy you could try on.

If you want a safe bet you will find a round-robin game with a higher chance top tier team will be matched against the low-tier team and by this, you can get a safe bet, or else you will seek another bet opportunity to the other games offered in that recent match, most of the time they are offering a match winner, first goal, first card, and etc. with the game you can also grab the chance if you know the team really well by this taking advantage you can easily hit a good run with the single game. For me its easier to predict sports betting if you have a good understanding and analysis with the players and the teams game play.

I like that you added 'hope to win' to your point, some people will talk as if the strategy will surely make you win, so there is a chance of losing still, which seems to be impossible to beat.

I think this strategy tends to increase your chances of winning, and thats why I will call this a good one, the reason why many gamblers lose money in sports bets is because of odds, they get greedy picking odds up, if the amount isn't very big they won't be satisfied.

Thanks for the advice, still who will learn will learn, many people are too greedy when it comes to gambling, you made $40 using just $5, many people won't like this, because it is too small to call a win in their head.

When it comes to sports bets, always choose fewer games, and take profit when you are in one even before the match ends.

The strategy is the opposite of what you are saying. But it implies banking on the favorite team will make a bettor win but the suggestion is to parley though. I think the goal is to make the winning amount higher. While you get the chances of winning are higher in a team with 1.10 odds, adding another team with another odds of 1.10 means hitting 1.20 right?

As always with this type of topics, people tend to get overly focused on the probability of winning, completely neglecting payout rates being too small to make it worth it.
Simple example: if you bet on a dye-roll and bet on it rolling any number from 1-5 with a winning bet paying you x1.10 - you'd be winning the vast majority of times, but you'd still be losing money.

To have an effective strategy, you need to find a way of shifting the advantage to your side. Otherwise it's just inventing new ways of losing money.


1.21 to be precise. You just need to multiply them together.

And you do not think that the "gambling within gambling" approach is such that can increase the risk of the gambler? As we are looking for a means to reduce risk, you are here advocating more risk, that's certainly not conservative. Just like the martingale approach you mentioned, it is such that puts the account of the gambler at a higher risk and martingale has never been a term in any risky activity to denote something done with ease but it always denotes something done in desperation. Are you now preaching desperation in gambling which we always advised against?

As for the betting style, this is not just a good style that denote good and careful speculation but gambling on a certain pattern. Mind you, who says since a team has scored, it has now guaranteed their winning? This is baseless and your argument is not just constructive in this regard, histories would prove you wrong millions of times.

Oh, nice that you know it doesn't work in the EPL. But I do not know what you mean by "FIFA" because that name is the entire football body which the guy claimed he is using the strategy for. So I don't even know if you are For or Against anymore.

Don't let this be a test, five dollars is enough to risk on gambling and sometimes you can even make more than this forty dollars, how do you feel after winning? I can bet with you that you won't feel the same if you start using higher amount, unless its within the certain amount that you are willing to lose.

---

Either this strategy or that strategy, in the end what matters is the risks you are taking, losses in inevitable in gambling, thats why one must stay within their capability, a gambler who risk small amount of money will always be a happy gambler.

Even if you are rich you should still keep using small amount of money, gambling is not a genuine source of making money, it is a space of making unrealistic gains, that's why you always need to protect yourself, do not be greedy and if you believe that your strategy is one of a kind, just stick to it and don't ever increase the amount of money.

Your under note is very necessary because of newbie gamblers here whom might assume it as risk free strategy that guarantee winning. This strategy doesn't sound new to me. I attempted it some times back but later abandoned it due to my high stake on little odds which I see as risking too much. I tried it on table tennis too and it is use to work some time while it won't at times. Most at times, the game get more intense towards the final period of the game and if care is not lots of goals will be scored and the initial favorite with less odds will be defeated. The strategy in general is a good one but the reason why I later abandoned it is because of how I was managing it. I do pick three to four games some times to realize two odds in order to be able to double the money and if you are not staking huge amount, the return will be very insignificant. So I think it would be better to risk appropriately and earn a decent amount if it works out than to risk huge amount on little return.

Just a small amount enough for a fan to follow the sport and enjoy watching. Yup any sport I guess you can experiment on the strategy. I tried it on some sport that didn't work for me but it could work for you. It is always just betting for the favorite team, the bookmakers rarely make mistakes in their odds which means you are also on the winning side.

You just can't control the upsets and draws which is why there is also the note about the strategy being Not Guaranteed to work for all.